|
|
WRM Bulletin
|
|
WRM GENERAL ACTIVITIES As a response to the violents events of last December in Sarawak (see WRM Bulletin nr. 7) faxes were sent to political, Policy and Justice authorities of Sarawak and Malaysia expressing our concern for the arrest and shooting of Iban natives that resulted in the death of one of them, and the violation of their custommary land rights. We appealed to conduct and inmediate and fair investigation on these facts that would lead to the punishment of this offence against Iban engaged in peaceful protests, and to make sure that Native Customary Rights are definitevely respected. We ask to send faxes/telegrams/letters before 22 January (the day when the Iban will have to appear at the Magistrate's Courts): - expressing concern at the death of Enyang Ak Gendung after
being shot by police officers while unarmed in front of his longhouse; Messages are to be sent to: YAB Dr. Mahathir Mohammed, Prime Minister and Minister of
Home Affairs, Jalan Dato Onn, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia YAB Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of Finance, Jalan Dato Onn, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia YB Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud, Chief YBhg. Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Noor, Inspector General of Police,
Police Headquarters, Bukit Aman, 50560 Kuala The Rt Hon. Tan Sri Dato` Seri Hj. Mohd. Eusoff Chin, The
Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Bangunan The Chief Judge of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak Please send a copy of your letter to: - Borneo Resources Institute, Fax: 60 85 438580, email: bri@tm.net.my - Aracruz: trade union requests information The main trade union of Aracruz Celulose (SINTICEL) has a project to monitor the pulpmill's effluents. The union is convinced than the company is tampering the results of the chemical analysis of its effluents, thus subjecting the whole community to health hazards and impacting on the ecosystem. SINTICEL has the technical capacity to establish its own laboratory to carry out the chemical analysis of effluents, but lacks the financial resources to do so. If anyone can make any suggestions on possible funding sources for such project, please get in contact with SINTICEL's president Joaquim Artur Duarte Branco (Artur) at <sinticel@aranet.com.br >
WRM CAMPAIGNS - Sarawak: Amnesty International's call for action In the last issue of our Bulletin we informed about the events of December in Sarawak. Enyang ak Gendung who was shot by the police while protesting peacefully, died in hospital from his injuries on 24 December 1997, after five days in coma under intensive care. A postmortem performed three days later revealed a bullet lodged inside his head. Enyang ak Gendung was married with three children, aged between seven and 17 years. Rolly ak Sylvester, who is a 13-year-old child, and Tingom ak Rangking were released from police custody on 23 December. The remaining detainees were released six days later. Even if no charges have been laid against any members of the group, all are due to appear at Miri Magistrate's Court on 22 January 1998. Indit ak Uma, who was shot in the stomach, chest and wrist, and Siba ak Sentu, who was shot in the abdomen, were also detained by the police until their release on 29 December. Indit is reported to have returned to the hospital for treatment to his stomach wound which became infected while he was in detention. Up to 22 other Iban from neighbouring communities are also reported to have been detained briefly before 23 December 1997. They were also released without charge but ordered to appear at the Magistrate's Court in Marudi on 22 January 1998. Amnesty International has called for action in support of the Iban. Source: Ann Wolfe, Amnesty International, 6/1/1998. - "A fortune for the people" of Sarawak? The Malaysian Ministry of Economic Affairs has announced an increase in pulpwood plantations throughout Malaysia, Sarawak included. At present, an area of 10,000 hectares is occupied by tree plantations in Sarawak and it is increasing as in other regions of the country. While in the past most of the tree plantations were established by the State, at present private companies are becoming more and more involved. The role of the State is changing: Dr. Haji Abdul Taib Mahmud -Sarawak’s Chief Minister- has recently announced that "a part" of the 64,000 km2 forest reserve will be declassified and this land will be devoted to tree plantations. The intention of transforming Malaysia into one of the most important world producers of cellulose seems to be a relevant factor in this policy. Taib Mahmud announced this at the ceremony marking the start of construction of "Borneo Pulp and Paper Sdn. Bhd", a new pulp mill, situated in Ulu Tatau, near Bintulu, that will cost U$S 600 million. The project is a joint-venture between the Sarawak Timber Industry Development Corporation and the Asia Pulp & Paper Company Ltd. In this case it is the government itself who is going to establish 200,000 hectares of fast-growing species to supply the paper factory, that will start production in 1999, with an initial annual production of 750,000 tons of cellulose. According to the Chief Minister, "such projects could mean a fortune for the people who have lived in poverty for generations". Such statement is contradicted by reality. The development of large scale monocultures -both oil palm and industrial tree plantations- is together with logging, dam building and tourism resorts another activity that severely threatens the customary land rights of the Dayak Iban. The Sarawak State Government plans to "develop" 1,5 million hectares of native customary land (NCL) as oil palm plantations. In implementing the land development programme, the government mainly grants provisional leases to the State statutory bodies/agencies or private companies for a period of 60-90 years. Once the land has been leased, the agencies or the private companies become the proprietors of the land. Without the knowledge or consent of the native communities, most of their NCL has been appropriated to companies which are either state owned or owned by the same people who were granted the logging licences or permits to develop these land areas into oil palm plantations. The native communities are opposing and resisting these activities. The Government has also targetted one million hectares of land for industrial tree plantations. Some 10 timber companies have met with the Sarawak Timber Association and the Forest Department to carry out a scoping exercise to identify the concerns of potential investors in this venture. In Tatau in Bintulu Division, the Borneo Pulp & Paper Sdn. Bhd. has been provided with 373,700 hectares of land for the planting of acacia, eucalyptus and other fast-growing tree species. The site for the pulp and paper mill is affecting 12 Iban longhouses in Upper Tatau. The Ibans are challenging the extinguishment of their NCR and also filed an arbitration in the High Court. It is very clear that -unless stopped- there projects could certainly "mean a fortune" to a few powerful people, but will result in poverty for the people who have lived in harmony with nature for generations. Sources: Roger Graf, Bruno Manser Fonds Newsletter, January 1998; Forest Peoples Programme, January 1998. - World Bank forest policy labyrinth In 1991 the World Bank adopted a forest policy that resulted from a process of extensive consultation with the international NGO community. One of the main points of this policy was that it bans direct funding for logging in primary forests. These represent only 20% of the forest cover of the Planet and are to be found in the Amazon, Canada’s Pacific Northwest and the taiga in Siberia. As a request of the Bank’s Board, the policy was to be reviewed three years after its entry into force, but this period proved to be too short for a complete review. The review has not been accomplished yet. Nevertheless, some parties within the Bank are promoting a change in the present policy without any evaluation of its results. At a senior meeting of the Bank held in November 14, 1997, changes in this policy were discussed and special attention was paid to the elimination of the ban. Since an official document of the Bank stated that such changes were being supported by some mainstream NGOs, a network of 113 NGOs from 35 countries -among which the WRM and part of its member organizations-addressed the WB by means of an open letter on December 10, 1997, expressing their opposition to the suspected changes, since they "risk opening the floodgates for large investments in unsustainable forest operations, thereby further contributing to the world’s forest crisis". The 1998 Forest Sector Strategy and Policy Review announced by the Bank -that includes a forest market transformation, an alliance with WWF and an outreach to timber companies- have caused unrest in the NGO community. According to the Bank Information Center (BIC) "the general direction in which the Bank seems to be heading is towards engagement with the private sector and ‘sustainable’ logging". Concern has increased after the so called "CEO meeting", that took place in Washington on January 9. It was chaired by Mr. James D. Wolfensohn -President of the WB- and attended by thirteen Chief Executive Officers of industry (among which some "bad guys" coming from companies very well known by their destructive logging activities, for example Mohammed Hasan, head of the Indonesian Wood Panel Association, a logging company plagued with widespread allegations of environmental and human rights abuses), five NGO representatives (Conservation International, IUCN, World Resources Institute, WWF and World Wide Fund for Nature) and an offical of the Russian Ministry of Economy. NGOs that severely question the notion of "sustainable logging" as well as representatives from Southern countries and indigenous peoples were excluded, even if -or perhaps, because- they come from the regions at greater risk from intensified logging. Since no controversial issues were addressed the mood of the meeting was by all means constructive and candid. Not-attending NGOs have expressed a number of concerns about the meeting: Is the process to be kept among a closed circle that includes Wolfensohn, his industry buddies and some major NGOs, or will it be open to broad civil society? Is participation in the Issue Papers that have been commissioned guaranteed also to NGOs that have been at odds with the CEO group? How can the CEO group be considered "informal" and at the same time "action-oriented" as the Bank states? Is it of any use, or even ethic, to avoid the issue of the worst industry practitioners? It is adequate that the WB support "voluntary standards" proposed by the industry instead of state or international regulations? Last but not least: is this meeting separate from the current revision of the forest policy review of the Bank, as it adamantly insists? The still remaining primary forests are at risk of getting lost in the Bank forestry policy labyrinth.
LOCAL STRUGGLES AND NEWS AFRICA - Malaysian logging in African forests In WRM Bulletin nr. 3 (8/8/97) we informed about a megaproject of industrial tree plantations in Eastern Cape province of South Africa by Malaysian forestry companies. The activities of the Malaysian in Africa continues, also in the logging sector. In September 1997 Innovest Bhd began logging in a 3,360 km2 concession in the southwest of Congo-Brazzaville. The company, that holds 92% of the shares of the Congolese subsidiary Innovest Congo SA, is planning to cut 100,000 m3 of timber each year. Menawhile another Malaysian company -Timber Industries Bhd- has purchased a timber concession of 10,000 km2 in a primary forest of the Okano River basin in Gabon. 300,000 m3 of timber, especially okoumé and ozigo, will be cut annually. Malaysian timber companies have been repeatedly criticized because of their destructive activities worldwide. Source: Bruno Manser Fonds Newsletter, January 1998.
SOUTH AMERICA - Brazilian forestry policy is not trustworthy Brazilian NGOs FASE and IBASE, the National Commission for the Environment of CUT (Brazilian Workers Union), Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, addressed a letter to the Federal Government expressing their doubts about the promise made by President Fernando Henrique Cardozo during his visit to the UK last December, to guarantee the protection of 10% of the Brazilian forests until year 2000. The organizations demand effective measures to protect the Mata Atlantica and the Amazon. Since reality shows that successive governments have proved completely incapable of enforcing the legislation that protects the forests, the official statement sounds as an attempt to diverge attention from the destructive processes that affect Brazilian forests: logging, burning, mining activities. In fact the Mata Atlantica, that covered 16 Brazilian States is nowadys reduced to 8% of its original area. Not to talk about the Amazon, that reduced its cover at a rate of 14,700 km2/year between 1992/93 and 1993/94, what means an increase of 30% if compared to the previous period. Last but not least, the 10% mentioned by the Government leads to confusion since the areas already protected by law (Forest Reserves, National Parks, etc.) already sum up 1,1 million square kilometres, which is by far more than 10% of the Brazilian territory. Source: Lenine A. Carvalho, January 1998. For the first time in Brazilian history the Federal Government has been condemned by the Court to pay a compensation to the Panara -also called Krenhakarore- indigenous people of Mato Grosso because of the damages and deaths suffered as a consequence of interethnic contacts. The Panara were forced to abandon their lands, which were to be crossed by the new highway Cuiaba-Santarem, and reestablished at Xingu National Park. In the period 1973-1976 a total of 186 persons died of influenza, diarrhoea and other illnesses. In 1996 the Panara succeeded in coming back to their home land, even if it was already dramatically modified by urban and "garimpeiros" expansion. The Instituto Socioambiental of Brazil represented the Panara at Court. Source: Parabolicas nr. 35, December 1997. - Shell in the Peruvian Amazon Rainforest Action Network (RAN), Amazon Watch and Project Underground remain deeply concerned about Shell's activities in the Peruvian Amazon and have decided not to participate in the workshops organized by the company to discuss the Camisea Project that took place in Washington DC on December 12 and in London on December 15. In a letter sent to Shell, they express that this forum was not structured in a way in which constructive dialogue is possible, since the current process remains a discussion on how to proceed with gas development in Camisea, as opposed to any consideration of whether or not this is a sound project from a development, energy policy, environmental, or cultural perspective. Like local communities in the Camisea region, international environmental and human rights organizations are invited to "discuss" on items only established by Shell. "From the beginning, Shell's consultation process has actually denied local communities' critical and pertinent rights. Specifically, during early stages of the consultation process, Shell failed to provide the affected communities with adequate information on the complexity and severity of impacts of industrial fossil fuel projects in rainforest areas" states the letter. Shell ignored the rights to full information and consultation codified in the International Labor Organization's Convention 169 and in the 1993 Peruvian Constitution. Shell Peru's current "dialogue" process is just aimed at gaining project approval and neutralising NGOs criticism, but not at really taking into account rootgrass opinions. The Project deserves also specific critiques: despite the mitigating measures Shell may take during the development phase of the project, the environmental impact of this 40-year industrial project in a primary, frontier rainforest area remains unknown; Camisea is a "model project" for further initiatives that can lead to further destruction, in particular of the pristine areas of the western Amazon that are threatened by the proposed Brasil-Bolivia pipeline; Shell has never opened up for serious review of the threat the project poses for the more vulnerable indigenous populations in the region, especially the nomadic ones. Shell’s depleting activities at the Ogoni region of Nigeria are not a good antecedent to trust on the company’s capacity to dialogue. Source: Rainforest Action Network, December 1997. - Shell's activities in Ecuador Shell is planning to start prospecting activities for oil exploitation at Pañacocha-Tiputini, located at the Cuyabeno Faunistic Reserve and the Yasuni National Park. The latter was declared World Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO and hosts ancestral indigenous communities and a variety of wildlife. It is a unique place for the pink dolphins, some varieties of tropical parrots (guamacayos), several species of monkeys and other mammals. Accion Ecologica calls the attention on the menace that Shell activities means for this region and expresses its determination to fight against it. Source: Gloria Chicaiza, Oil Campaign, Accion Ecologica.
NORTH AMERICA - North American First Nations websites At the Nawash website: http://www.bmts.com/~dibaudjimoh The website of the First Nations Information Project: http://www.johnco.com/nativel Source: David McLaren, January 1998.
ASIA - Indonesia: Mega-project in Central Kalimantan It seems that problems for the Dayak people in Central Kalimatan do not cease. While they are still suffering the consequences of this year's enormous forest fires, the mega-project launched by President Suharto at the beginning of 1996 to convert around 1.5 million hectares of peat swamp forests into rice-fields keeps on going, in spite of the local and international protests, and of the recommendations made two months ago by the EIA carried out in the area. A report produced by Jakarta-based NGO PAN-Indonesia shows how the local way of life, that makes the best of available resources, is being sacrificed to this project. The production of rattan, purun grass (local palm tree) and fish that the Ngaju Dayaks of Dadahup used to obtain is being replaced by Green Revolution varieties of rice, such as IR66, Cisanggarung and Membrano, that need great quantities of chemicals. The government had promised to pay out compensations for the rattan plantations, fishponds and canals but none have been settled until now. Besides, local people are becoming more and more dependent on the project work through contractors, since their cultivated lands are being wiped out. According to the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) the project will also have long term implications for the hydrological cicles in the area involved, causing floods and droughts that will affect people living downstream the River Mengkatip. The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) has suggested the Indonesian government to abandon this questioned mega-project. Source: Down to Earth Nr. 25, November 1997 - Myanmar: threats to close off the forest against gas pipeline Rainforest extended over most of ancient Burma, but deforestation now affects two-thirds of the country’s forests. The Kanchanabury Conservation Group and 11 conservation human rights groups and their allies are threatening to close off the forest to prevent the controversial Thai-Burma gas pipeline being built through it. The groups involved claim that this controversial project, undertaken by the Petroleum Authority of Thailand (PTT), has infringed the rights of locals -since no consultation has been realized- and will damage natural resources. In fact, national parks status for the section in Sai Yok National Park, through which the 260 Km pipeline will pass, was revoked last October. Two weeks later, the PTT started laying the pipeline in the area. This National Park holds a lush forest. The activists made the threat in a bid to get the construction suspended and a new round of negotitions to be started. A petition will be presented to the Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai for the revision of a resolution, passed during the previous government, allowing construction of the pipeline. Phibhop Dhongchain, spokesperson of the NGOs, said that if no response is given they will march from Bangkok to Kanchanabury and close the forest to prevent PTT from laying the pipeline until talks are called to consider changing its route. Sources: Oilnews Nr 18 (2/2/98); The World Guide 1997/1998. - Mining activities destroy the environment in Indonesia Freeport, a huge US-based mining company that operates in Indonesia, owns the Grasberg gold mine in Irian Jaya, the biggest open-pit gold mine in the world. This mine is producing a significatively negative environmental impact both on the water courses and on the forests of Irian Jaya. Ajkwa River -into which Freeport dumps 125,000 tons of rock waste every day- was considered by the provincial environmental bureau in April 1997 as not filling the required public health standards because of contamination from mining waste. Already in 1996 very high levels of contamination by mercury had been found according to an independient analysis performed by PT Sucofindo. Cyanide and arsenic contamination is also likely to exist. Meanwhile, Jim Bob Moffet, spokesman of the company, has recently admitted the existence of another source of pollution, this affecting the forests nearby: large quantities of copper are contaminating the massive tailings deposition area in the rainforest downstream from the mine. The dumped tailings have changed the course of the Ajkwa, which has been forced to sheet eastward into the forest. Freeport has already drowned 50 km2 of the river’s catchment and this "sacrifice zone" will grow to 130 km2 of rainforest, during the estimated 40-year life of the mine. The company is trying to "compensate" local communities for the damages it is causing by paying them an annual one percent of future profits. Local people have refused to accept such offer since it would mean to buy their silence. They just want to ensure that the problems caused by the mine are adequately addressed. In 1996 the affected communities took their grievance outside their nation’s borders, to the home of the company itself, by filing a U$S 6 billion lawsuit in a Louisiana Federal Court. Freeport is also involved in cases of violence against the peasants. Last August four Ekari peopli died around the mine and the police obliged Ekari villagers to hand over all sharp objects, including those used for agriculture, hunting and religious ceremonies. The WRM Secretariat addressed letters of concern to the company’s and the country’s authorities because of this event. Source: World Rivers Review. October 1997. - Alliance of UPM-Kimmene-APRIL under siege The alliance between UPM-Kymmene of Finland and APRIL of Singapore to develop jointly their respective fine paper operations in Europe and Asia has been severely criticized by environmental and human rights groups (see WRM Bulletin nr. 6). A letter, whose text is included below, was addressed to the owners and managers of UPM-Kymmene and APRIL, as well as to the Finnish press as a part of a campaign aimed to stop the alliance. Friends of the Earth-Finland has also compiled an Internet
page on the UPM-Kymmene/April case. The page includes documents and links to the company
sites as well as relevant links to related topics such as forests fires, human rights and
labour union concerns. The address is: The text of the letter follows: President & CEO Dear Mr. Juha Niemelä, We, the undersigned environmental citizens' oganisations are deeply concerned about the alliance UPM-Kymmene announced in September with Asia Pacific Resources International Holdings ltd (APRIL) on fine paper production. As the planned joint venture April Fine Paper would base its production on pulp supplied by April's Riaupulp mill, and probably also Indorayon mill, UPM-Kymmene will actively participate in converting natural rainforests - partially so called logged-over - to exotic monoculture plantations. This causes irreversible loss of ecological values and destruction of the environment of local communities. Due to Indonesian oppressive labour regulations and practices UPM-Kymmene will also involve itself in a violation of basic labour standards. For these reasons we find UPM-Kymmene's alliance with April unacceptable. Therefore we urge you to cancel the announced alliance and abstain from cooperating with April until the following changes are made in its Riaupulp (Riau) and Indorayon (North Sumatra) mills: 1. no more natural forests (even so called logged-over or
degraded) are clear-cut and converted to monoculture plantations; We would like to get a substantial reply from you as soon as possible responding on our concerns and indicating your intentions regarding the alliance. Sincerely yours - Laos: Hydropower megaprojects against forests and people. In a letter signed by Aviva Imhof -Mekong Program Coordinator of International Rivers Network (IRN)- as a response to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) regarding the Sekong-Se San and Nam Theun River Basins Hydropower Development Study, IRN has expressed once again its concern on these megaprojects for Laos. IRN considers that the ADB should focus its attention on identifying and quantifying the impacts of existing or already committed projects, and on evaluating their economic returns to the Government of the host country, rather than proposing yet more dams for the region. "This is particularly important when one considers the widespread anticipatory logging and resettlement that occurs when a dam site is identified" states the letter. Hydropower projects in countries like Thailand, Burma, Vietnam, China and Laos itself have frequently been preceded by hurried and poorly-monitored logging operations in prospective inundation zones. These kind of practices not only cause an extensive negative environmental impact but also damage indigenous communities, that are displaced from their lands. This way hydropower development can become a tool used by governments to control ethnic minorities in Southeast Asia. Particularly in Laos, current and pending dam projects are being used as cover to evict village people from intended reservoir areas and from upland watersheds. Additionally local communities never benefit from the logging revenues. The purchase last year of a majority stake in the Xe Kaman 1 hydropower project by a Malaysian logging and property development company is a pending menace for the region, taking into account what has happened in the case of the Bakun Dam in Malaysia, and the depredatory actions of Malysian logging companies worlwide. Source: International Rivers Network, January 1998. - Thailand: two opposite approaches to forest conservation By Ricardo Carrere What has been happening in Thailand during the past years has developed into a showroom of some of the best and worst practices as respects to forest conservation. Local people and their allies have been fighting -in many cases successfully- against powerfull actors who are denying them their rights and destroying their means of subsistence. At the same time, they have been creating an alternative approach to forest conservation and use. What follows are some comments from a field trip which took place last November to the Northeastern provinces of Thailand, hosted by the Project for Ecological Recovery, a Thai NGO affiliated to the WRM. These comments are restricted to observations in the visited areas and do not pretend to give an overall view of the problem as a whole. The logging ban and "reforestation" After years of large scale logging, forest cover in Thailand declined from almost 60% to only 25%. Such extensive destruction derived in devastating floods, which in turn resulted in the loss of human lives and the destruction of villages and people's means of subsistence. In answer to public outcry, the Thai government approved in 1989 a logging ban which is still in force. At the same time, forestry academics came up with the idea that the country needed to increase its forest cover to 40% and began working in that direction. However, what they understand by forest cover is completely different to what most people understand as such. For these -and most- foresters, forest cover means simply to have a canopy of trees -any trees. So they chose one tree from Australia to increase Thailand's forest cover. The chosen tree was the fast-growing species Eucalyptus camaldulensis, the activity carried out was called "reforestation" and the result was "planted forests". At the beginning, villagers didn't have any opinion about this tree, so there was no opposition. In short time opposition began to grow due to different factors. In the first place, because eucalyptus started to be planted in the communities' lands, thus depriving them of a number of vital resources such as grass for grazing, food from wildlife and flora, medicines, fibres, fish, etc. Secondly, because plantations began to modify the environment in a way that resulted in impacts on their production, particularly due to a decrease in the availability of water for their crops and animals. It thus became very clear to villagers that "planted forests" were not forests, because these provide water and a number of other products and services which these plantations not only do not provide but on the contrary they deplete. Now only foresters believe -or try to- that they are "reforesting" the country. The pulp and paper industry Plantations are however not only being implemented with a stated environmental objective of increasing forest cover: there are other more concrete interests at stake. Northern forestry consultants (particularly the Finnish Jaakko Poyry) and "aid" agencies (for instance, Australian), as well as local and transnational actors working with and for the pulp and paper industry, as well as the pulp industry itself have played a major role in the expansion of this type of plantations. The main objective is to produce large amounts of cheap raw material to feed an export-driven pulp industry. As elsewhere in the world, the Thai pulp industry is highly destructive, both in terms of pollution and in terms of the dramatic social and environmental changes it imposes on the surrounding area. The industry needs to feed its mills from nearby sources because the cost of transport is a limiting factor, so plantations are concentrated in the surrounding area. Pressure is put on the local people to either sell their land or plant it with eucalyptus or suffer the consequences. If people have no land titles, then they are simply dispossesed. It also applies the same policy of initiating its activities with no pollution control. Over the years, organized opposition forces the industry to implement some measures with the least costs possible and then tries to show them as an example of corporate responsibility over the environment. In the case of Phoenix Pulp and Paper in Khon Kaen, the latter is shown through something they euphemistically call "Project Green", where eucalyptus planted in small holdings are irrigated with effluents from the mill. While eucalyptus grow very fast, other existing trees and vegetation die and the polluted water contaminates the water table and reaches the surrounding paddy fields destroying the crops. Certainly not a very "green" attitude. The unpopular national parks The "increase forest cover" policy is complemented with national parks aimed at ensuring the preservation of forests. The approach is however that people are seen as outside dangerous actors, which need to be excluded. The boundaries are defined by the government, with no consultation with the people, who see that their lands are being encroached by government officials. But people don't see forests in that way. They see forests as part of their means of subsistence and they don't view -as foresters do- forests as only composed by valuable wood. When I asked the people we met why forests were important to them, they seldom mentioned wood, except for firewood. Vegetables, mushrooms, ants, medicines, meat, fruit, water, were always mentioned before wood. Absurd as it may seem, monocultures of eucalyptus and teak are also being planted inside the boundaries of the national parks. The intention is probably twofold: to increase "forest cover" and to plant what they consider to be "valuable" wood. Although perhaps the reason is even more simple: eucalyptus and teak are easy to grow and the technical package is well known by foresters, who know little about the majority of the numerous species which grow in Thailand's diverse forests. The peoples' struggle Local people have suffered and resisted imposed "solutions" such as exclusive national parks and eucalyptus plantations. The pattern has been similar in all areas. Firstly, the government tries to convince people that its projects are either not going to affect them negatively or that they will benefit from them. The second stage is when people begin to realize that they are being affected and try to do something about it. The third stage implies organization and capacity building (where NGOs have played a major role.) Finally, the affected communities get together and carry out a number of actions to defend their rights. These actions have ranged from dialogue to confrontation and from local to regional and national. Cutting, uprooting and setting eucalyptus plantations and nurseries on fire have gone hand in hand with meetings, peaceful demostrations and discussions with government officials. Numerous meeting have been held at village and regional level and huge demonstrations have been held for many days in front of the provincial government house. They have created a wide range of networks on different issues. They have travelled to the provincial capitals and to Bangkok to hold meeting with government officials and private enterprise managers. They joined their different struggles in the Assembly of the Poor, which organized a nationwide demonstration in Bangkok. All this has meant that thousands of people have had to dedicate an enormous amount of their time and effort to defend their rights. They have had to travel long distances to make their voices heard by provincial and national government officials. Many have received life threats and some have been imprisoned. Among these, I would like to mention the following people from one of the villages we visited: Chom Sutponit, Som Jorjong, Visit Rotchanasom, Won Ponpruek, Bunnaaw Pairao, Noopha Mekdon and Sai Jaroen. Although none of them are currently in prison, they still face charges in relation to their anti-eucalyptus campaigning activities and could still face imprisonment. A different case is that of Kam Butsri from Burinam province, who has been in prison for over 3 years and could be kept in prison for 4 more years. His major "crime" was that of cutting down eucalyptus trees that were damaging his community's livelihood. Comparing the offense with the punishment, I tend to see him as a political prisoner, whose imprisonment is meant to serve as an example to bring fear to other possible opposers. The people's struggle has been successful in many places. In one of them, the powerful Asia Tech company has agreed not only to stop planting eucalyptus, but also to cut them down. In another case, the government has agreed to pay for the removal of the stumps of the eucalyptus. Phoenix Pulp and Paper had had to pay damages to local villagers affected by its effluents. Shell company decided to withdraw from a large scale plantation project. All these are positive examples to show the power of apparently powerless villagers once they organize and fight for their rights. The people's approach Widespread deforestation has not only had negative impacts on the environment; more importantly, it has impacted on people's livelihoods. Many local communities are thus striving to bring their forests back, but with a totally different approach from that of mainstream professional foresters. Forest regeneration is not seen as increasing forest cover but as increasing the numerous products and services that forests provide. Forests and agriculture are not viewed as opposed: on the contrary, they constitute an interactive system. People need food and other products, and the forest not only provides many of them, but also supports crop production and cattle raising. This approach -called community forest management- is completely different from most forest conservation policies and practices. Trees do not have an abstract environmental -and even less commercial- value: what is valuable is the forest as a whole, including water, grass for grazing, vegetables, fruit, etc., all linked to the satisfaction of local human needs. Local people are the decision-makers over their forests and establish democratically agreed rules and regulations on forest use. Shared satisfaction of local needs and shared decision-making and monitoring ensures forest conservation. Such forest management compares favourably with the "biosphere reserve" approach. For example, one of the community forests we visited had a central strict conservation zone, surrounded by what experts would call a "buffer zone", which is in fact the forest production area, where grazing and gathering activities take place. The approach differs, however, in that biosphere reserve management is imposed on communities, while community forest management is decided by them. Such difference is essential, because the latter ensures peoples livelihoods as well as forest conservation, while the former only aims at controlling that local people don't destroy the forest. The hated tree As a forester, can you tell us how to kill eucalyptus trees? This question was posed to me by villagers in the province of Sakhon Nakhon. In another village, a man put very strongly forward the idea of a world-wide anti-eucalyptus day. An Australian colleague visiting the area with us felt very embarassed by questions posed accusingly to him by villagers about this terrible tree from his country. Although a long time opposer of large scale eucalyptus plantations myself, I have never heard such a deeply rooted hatred towards a tree as I felt during my visit to the northeastern provinces of Thailand. Neither Australia nor its tree are of course guilty of the way in which the tree is being used. But given that eucalyptus are being planted in numerous countries in a way that disposesses local people of their basic resources and in a way that depletes those same resources, it has become a symbol of destructive forestry. People in Spain and Portugal are fighting against this tree in similar manners as in Thailand and India. Hawaian people have recently succeeded in halting a eucalyptus development project. Organizations from Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Colombia, Venezuela, South Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, New Zealand, Spain and from many other countries are getting together to fight against the spread of this type of plantations. While all this is happening, the FAO, the World Bank, the "experts" and forestry officials continue promoting a forestry model based on this tree and trying to prove that people are wrong. What's happening is exactly the contrary: more and more local people are proving, not only that they are right but also that they have positive solutions to the local and global problem of deforestation. The message from Thailand The long and increasingly successful struggle of the Thai people is enlightening and needs to be shared with other people facing similar problems in other parts of the world. The main message is that success is possible. They have experienced failures, but learnt from them. People have learnt to organize themselves at the village, local, regional and national level and to build a shared leadership. They have put an emphasis on capacity building in order to acquire the necessary skills for effective action. They have used different tactics at different stages of the struggle. But furthermost, they have been convinced, not only that they were right, but that they could succeed. And that's just what they are now doing. For more information on the plantations' issue in Thailand, you can consult Larry Lohmann's chapter 12 (From "reforestation" to contract farming) in "Pulping the South: Industrial Tree Plantations and the Global Paper Economy", Carrere, R. and Lohmann, L., Zed Books, 1996
|
 |
|||
|
|||
|
Go to Home Page
World Rainforest Movement
Maldonado 1858 - 11200 Montevideo - Uruguay
tel: 598 2 413 2989 / fax: 598 2 410 0985
wrm@wrm.org.uy
